Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries from 陈智昌 on 2014-04-23 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2014)

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:29:40 -0700
To: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, C.Brunhuber@iaea.org, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYjZ=fSi10f_gJmnnmm-raPjdgUhX_mow45TowoVy8uv7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:17 AM, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:

> There is another good reason to remove the implicit c-e,
>
> AFAICT, all of the browser vendors have refused to do HTTP/2.0 outside
> of tls.  As such they will avoid the implicit c-e's declared raison d'
> etre anyway.
>

This is factually incorrect, because Microsoft has declared that WinInet
(and thus IE) plan to support HTTP/2 in cleartext via HTTP Upgrade.

>
> Any intermediary which can MitM the tls will fubar things no matter what
> an rfc specifies.
>
> -JimC
> --
> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 17:30:08 UTC